vaccines have to be mandatory as freedom has nothing to do with prideful ignorance that is a threat to safety of and well being others

get it shitbag?

wait, you're stalking my other posts? and you think heroin is like a vaccine?

of course any vaccine should be thoroughly tested before they inject it into anyone you raving moron

it's not like they are grabbing people and injecting them with experimental formulations. the science on this is well-established and there is a rigorous review process before anyone gets injected

you are a fearmongering, pridefully ignorant wackjob. you need to get and your kids your fucking vaccine and if you do not you ARE a health threat to us so we WILL save your kids and the rest of us from your dangerous ignorance, you irresponsible asshole

go live in the mountains and never have kids. if you won't do that, do what you have to do to be part of society you dumb fuck

We didn't have vaccines for most of our nations history and those diseases never posed more than a passing threat to our society.

go to an old graveyard

look at the old tombstones

look at the ages

you're a pridefully ignorant asshole and your stupidity is dangerous to the rest of us

could you cite the HPV vaccine concerns? i remember some fearmongering from the right during the last election

you need clear and present proof, not "maybe possibly could"

your concerns are empty and pointless fear about hypotheticals that don't exist. therefore they are of no value

vaccines work. we should mandate them

someday they might not work you say? someday they could be a danger you say? what does that even mean? every fucking thing we make in the world can fuck up. maybe someday the AI of self-driving cars will screw up and drive people off bridges, so we should never have self-driving cars. what? this is just unfounded fear

your position is nonsense

you have no right to shoot and kill someone unless they represent a mortal threat to you

likewise, government has no right to use force against anyone unless that person represents a clear threat to society

if you do not get vaccinated, you are a clear threat to society as a disease vector

therefore, society has the right to protect itself from your irresponsibility of exposing people to danger, by authorizing government to force you to vaccinate

it's exactly the same as protecting yourself from a home invader. you can get shot for invading a home, because you are an unknown mortal threat to the home's occupant. in the same way, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat that society must neutralize with use of force

the words in your comment are written as if government and society are forcing you to do something against your will for no good reason

but society has a very good reason

you are a threat to us if you do not get vaccinated

there's always going to be people with legitimate medical reasons like yourself not to get vaccinated

which is why you should be grateful for laws making vaccines mandatory: herd immunity means you and the few others unvaccinated for valid reasons are protected

where herd immunity breaks down, such as when not enough people get their vaccinations for fucking retarded reasons, you are at greater risk of getting maiming and hobbling diseases

i waded through your dreary insults then stopped reading here:

I personally see absolutely nothing cruel about warning someone against doing drugs because it will lead to a life of poverty, addiction, and early death and then making them face the consequences of their decisions when the turkey comes home to roost

no, douchebag, that is cruel

your views are invalid as your attitude is immoral

coming after all the condescension and assumed superiority, it was actually quite funny

when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved

the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion

we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. you understand there are side effects to addiction like destroyed lives. you do understand that right?

it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture. how do you eat? where do you sleep? how can you get a job or have a relationship when feeding an artificial need is more important to you than everything?

so you're angry, you want to fight because you don't see the problem. and you're stupid, because you don't understand it's not just about personal freedom. you're a complete loser

the tragedy of drugs is it can start in teenage years when:

1. people are in the most pain psychologically. friends, romance, etc.: it hurts in unique ways when you are young. turning to drugs is appealing to deal with this pain that would otherwise normally subside with age
2. people think they are immortal and invincible and their willpower is stronger than addiction. it never is
3. people are dumb. they can have a lot of book smarts but they don't have enough social awareness to understand where this all leads

so you wind up with ruined lives

addicts should always be treated the portuguese way" healthcare, not jail. it's just cheaper and a lot more humane

however the portuguese still go after dealers and the drug trade is still illegal. no country in the world is "all drug trade should be legal." no one thinks that works. because it proliferates more addicts

so it's a cost/benefit analysis: i am spending my money feeding and treating and housing addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first, to minimize costs and prevent the proliferation of more addicts

but of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. yet don't forget: if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house

so it is a very tricky balance. a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction

and every drug is different. every drug needs their own policy. there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers

something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society

but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively

something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive

when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved

the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion. the simple truth is, we're not cruel, we don't just let addicts turn to crime and starve and die and ignore them. and we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture and see how the problem festers and grows

i am spending my money feeding and housing useless addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first

of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. but if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house

so it's a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction. and the truth is every drug is different

something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society. but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively

something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive

there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers

the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth, cocaine, or especially heroin

physical bars can be transcended via the mind. but bars in the mind?

i never understood people who, in the name of freedom, support the use of the most freedom destroying methods known to man. anything that causes easy addiction is freedom destroying. a chemical interrupt switch in the mind that must be fed is not freedom and prioritizes over all other pursuits: work, food, sex. that's existential slavery and destruction of the self

i know some people have painful lives. and we all feel temporary pain or tedium that is relieved with substances with much power addictive potentials, that's ok. so let's call hard highly addictive drug use what it is: slow motion suicide by people with serious psychological problems. and after enough addiction, it's hard to tell how much of the original pain is still the causative agent. which is the problem: a perhaps temporary problem is now a permanent life hobbling addiction. let's stop lying by saying hard highly addictive drug use is some great exercise in freedom. it's exactly the opposite

you are not in any masters program in any college or university. you're a bad liar as well as a moron

no one as stupid as you can get that far and still believe what you have written about a democracy and a republic

you really need to learn to stop talking about topics you obviously do not understand. unless you like people hating you and laughing at you

well said with an even temper

i don't have a position. i am educating you on actual history and economic fact

meanwhile, the idea that markets self-regulate is not an extreme position. it is a moronic position. to believe markets achieve fairness on their own requires one to deny well-established facts and to believe in low iq fantasies. you are on the same order as an antivaxxer or a creationist. really

the physical cost is the fusing of atomic nuclei in a ball of gas we did not invest anything in and will burn for another few billion years with no effort on our part

the financial cost of the energy source is actually zero